monidaw1 - that spread cover is an anomaly. There are a few hanging around that haven't been fixed yet.

It's just weird how short of a period of time it took me to stumble across one after mentioning it this morning. I'm all for not fixing it since it's a perfectly sensible thing to have CCL showing a back cover scan when the front cover scan doesn't contribute the key identification information or in the case of the Variants being discussed originally has the identifiers clearly displayed whereas continually reposting the same identical front cover scan does no one any real good.

I'm assuming there's no reason the dual cover shots I made originally (or someone else's cleaner version if they have a few minutes and little photoshop talent) couldn't be used to help since I've seen spread out cover shots showing the front and back at the same time all over the place.

one of the reasons to not use them is that they don't fit the "standard" size/layout of all the other images. If CCL ever adds the ability to have more than 1 image per issues ( for flip covers or wraparound covers), things might be different.

one of the reasons to not use them is that they don't fit the "standard" size/layout of all the other images.

That's not really a problem. It just makes the individual sections smaller than normal and is already in use many times in the database cover scans. It's just a very simple way to clue people in that there's more to look for than just what's on the front. It's providing more data than a single view of the front cover alone does and can greatly improve accuracy while reducing confusion. Remember the year and a half of confusion over that cartoon bear issue where the front cover of one variant was the back cover of another variant but there was no clear way to tell which was which unless you actually had both issues in your hand to compare.

Quote:

If CCL ever adds the ability to have more than 1 image per issues ( for flip covers or wraparound covers), things might be different.

Which is why having a simple exception or amendment added to the guidelines to allow the use of back cover scans or at least encouraging increased use of spread/dual cover scans in place of front cover only scans in the cases where the front cover scan serves no value for identification makes sense and provides the information needed without costing CCL any storage or bandwidth stuff headaches. Win-Win situation for everyone.

Now if you're saying all the dual/spread cover scans in use already aren't supposed to be and you want them removed just say so and I'll start pointing them out for you to remove the spread cover scans for those nice white box/no image available generic images which would also be preferable to having a front cover scan that doesn't show what makes a variant a variant. No cover scan at all would at least clue us in to slow down and read the captions and other information.

I'm going to ask Santa for a larger flatbed scanner for Christmas this year so I can provide better quality images myself and scan larger stuff like some of the bigger magazines, books and Treasury editions. He's always watching.

Now if you're saying all the dual/spread cover scans in use already aren't supposed to be and you want them removed ...

That has been the direction from CCL management for years. The full wraparound/flip covers never should have been accepted, but they were - years ago.

It's not some random decision/stance the approvers are making (or even just me). It's been CCL standard as long as I've been here.

And no, I don't think it's weird you happened to stumble one a spread cover shortly after that discussion. You're looking at books that no one has probably looked at updating in years. It's not all that surprising to me. Heck, there was a GI Joe vs. Transformers cover I found a few months ago from Devil's Due in 2003.

You'd think management could get around to working that into one of those completely inflexible, rigid commandments we live by or are limited by depending on your point of view. The wording shouldn't be that hard to come up with.

Thou shalt remove helpful visual data from the database for reasons of visual uniformity and general aesthetics while continuing to add duplicative/ generally redundant imagery in it's place, no exceptions ever allowed.

The discussion makes me wonder about the intent of the rule against opened wraparound cover scans. Is it a desire for uniformity of size and aspect ratio? Or is it a desire to display front covers specifically?

For example: In the case of Warstrike #1, if a person were to create an image that was split diagonally, with the top left half of the front cover above the split, and the bottom right half of the back cover below the split, but at normal front cover–only size and aspect ratio, would that be deemed an acceptable image for the CCL library?

I'll confess it's sort of an academic question as far as I'm concerned; I have to go to a public library for scanning, and I would have to learn the skills to create the sort of image I described. Still, I am curious about the answer to my question.

Now if you're saying all the dual/spread cover scans in use already aren't supposed to be and you want them removed ...

That has been the direction from CCL management for years. The full wraparound/flip covers never should have been accepted, but they were - years ago.

It's not some random decision/stance the approvers are making (or even just me). It's been CCL standard as long as I've been here.

Ok this has been bugging me for a while so figured might as well ask.

Why is it when ever someone finds a way to fix simple things on CCL DB, like doing split covers or anything that might make CCL an easier place to shop but doesnt require any rewriting of script code the reply is always the same "Management doesnt want that". So again why?

When ever this management you guys speak of shows up here (about once a month tops) the same approvers who use this quote bash them for not doing anything or complain about how ZERO changes have happened in years.

So why dont the CCL approvers just make changes and damn the management? If it makes CCL a better selling destination because we now have split covers then why not just do it? What is management all of a sudden going to come here and rectify it or fix it, or fire everyone and do the work themselves? NO, they wont, why because they dont have to lift a finger and everything is done for them.

Sometimes in life you have to force management to see the error of its ways. If adding split cover or something else makes it easier for buyers to find what they want, or easier for sellers to list the right product who loses? In the end this non existent management will probably never ever notice and if they do they might just realize they were wrong to not allow it.

So why dont the CCL approvers just make changes and damn the management?

Because then there would be chaos. Approvers can't do what ever we want. We have to abide by the rules, but if we don't like them we work to change them. Sometimes that takes a while and sometimes it doesn't happen. But we still have to live within the Guidelines and try to change them if needed.

@freakdylan:You raise some interesting points. They remind me of some experiences in which decisions and policies enforced by managers where I worked made no sense. More than once, my confusion was eliminated in an instant by an announcement that clarified everything (mass layoffs, reorganization, etc.). On one such occasion, the announcement was of a sale of the business to new owners. Of course I have no way of knowing whether the points you raise are affected by a similar intent.

So why dont the CCL approvers just make changes and damn the management?

Because then there would be chaos. Approvers can't do what ever we want. We have to abide by the rules, but if we don't like them we work to change them. Sometimes that takes a while and sometimes it doesn't happen. But we still have to live within the Guidelines and try to change them if needed.

First huge fan of your website, kudos on that.

Second, why? So you work on a huge cruise boat and the captain says never change the direction. Then he flees and comes back once in a while to make sure he is still making money. Now few weeks later boat is heading towards huge iceberg, would you blindly follow orders and die or do whats best for the boat and its passengers?

I am not by any means suggesting every approver does what he wants willy nilly. But if you all decide hey split covers is great idea. Again why not just change it. Admin is NEVER ever going to fire everyone over it, then they would have to close the site and you guys make them money. Not sure how it would hurt to take the bulls by the horns and do whats right as opposed to whats been dictated by an owner who has fled the scene years ago.

Database is using the back cover scan whereas 2A is using the front cover scan.

Quote:

Personally, I'll never support split covers because they look like a$$ in this terrible locked down 800 x 600 layout.

I understand you're not liking them but as pointed out that's an aesthetic thing and as far as that goes, you never have to see the image for any duration unless you're looking at that one specific issue and if you were working with that issue the extra imagery would be helpful. The more I look into this I notice it appears a number of covers were originally intended to be viewed spread open. I stumbled across this one this morning in my reading.

Not only was the cover originally designed to be viewed spread open, they went to the trouble of advertising it that way. That ad's from All-Star Comics 71 the page right before the page numbered 12 in the book.

You call it what you want. I look at it simply as encouraging discussion on the topic which is what this portion of the board is for while taking a moment to point out yet another example already in the database. Make it go away. Slap another front cover scan over that back cover scan showing the signiture.

This discussion makes me wish there were a database implemented as a web service that comics sales sites could subscribe to for information and images.

With such a database, administrators and contributors could concentrate on capturing ALL the data that ANY user might find useful. Sales sites could begin without the daunting start-up costs of collecting data and scans on zillions of comics, and would be free to use only images and data that fit their page designs. No more frustrating arguments; everybody happy.

Forum Jump

Access

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.